M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PLOT NO.76, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL FIRST APPEAL NO.2092 OF 2019 (Arising out of order dated 09.10.2019 passed in Case.No.192/2019 by District Commission, Bhopal no.1)

1. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH WEST CENTRAL RAILWAY, JABALPUR.

2. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, NEAR HABIBGUNJ RAILWAY STATION, BHOPAL. … APPELLANTS.

Versus A.N.S. SHRIVASTAVA, 9-B, MANIPURRAM, RAVI SHANKAR NAGAR, BHOPAL. .… RESPONDENT.

BEFORE :

HON’BLE DR.SRIKANT PANDEY, PRESIDING MEMBER HON’BLE DR. (MRS) MONIKA MALIK, MEMBER COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :

Shri Deepesh Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants.

Shri Karun Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent.

O R D E R (Passed on .07.2025)

The following order of the Commission was delivered by Dr.(Mrs) Monika Malik, Member :

This is an appeal by the opposite party / appellant –

Railways directed against the order dated 09.10.2019 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bhopal no.1 (for short ‘District Commission’) in complaint case no.192/2019, whereby the District Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by the complainant / respondent.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that the complainant alongwith wife and daughter was travelling from New Delhi to Bhopal in Shatabdi Express Train no.12002 in coach no.E-2 on 08.10.2018. The complainant had kept his mobile phone near his reserved seat, attached to the charging point. It is alleged that some unauthorized persons were roaming in the said coach. After sometime when the train was about to approach Jhansi railway station, the complainant observed that the mobile phone was missing. He informed the same to the T.C. and lodged FIR with GRP police station after reaching Habibganj, railway station on 08.10.2018. The complainant alleged that due to deficiency in service on part of the Railways his mobile phone costing Rs.11,193/- was stolen. He therefore filed complaint before the District Commission, seeking relief.

3. The opposite parties/ respondents - Railways resisted the complaint on the ground that they had charged the fare regarding travel of the passenger and Railways is not responsible for safety of the luggage carried by the passenger. It is also submitted that the Railways is liable to pay compensation as per Section 100 of the Indian Railways Act only in case when the luggage is booked. It is also submitted that the complainant had negligently kept his mobile phone, therefore, no deficiency in service can be attributed on the part of the Railways.

4. The District Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the Railways to pay cost of mobile phone i.e. Rs.11,193/- within a period of two months. In addition, compensation of Rs.5,000/- with costs of Rs.3,000/- is also awarded. Hence, this appeal.

5. Heard. Perused the record.

6. Learned counsel for the Railways argued that the complainant had left his mobile phone in an unattended condition, attached to the charging point. He did not take care of his mobile phone, which led to its theft. The Railways had charged fare regarding travel of the passenger and no further amount was charged regarding safety and security of passenger’s luggage. Therefore, the impugned order be set aside.

7. Learned counsel for the complainant/ respondent supported the impugned order and argued that it is the responsibility of the Railways to take care of the safety and security of its passengers. The mobile phone was kept on the seat which was attached to the charging point and it was not left in an unattended condition. Despite that it was stolen, therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. He placed reliance on the judgment of Honble National Commission in Revision petition no.1382/2015, Union of India & Ors. Vs. Daya Shankar Tiwari, decided on 26.11.2024 to support his arguments.

8. The complainant had alleged that there were unauthorized entry in the coach in which he was travelling, which is categorically denied by the Railways. It is also submitted by the Railwa